Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All submissions are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer review. TMG – Journal for Media History uses a double blind peer review procedure: the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and vice versa. Articles that are offered to the journal are assessed by two reviewers employed in a relevant scientific sub-field, based on the article's scientific relevance and accountability, logical consistency, methodological validity and so forth.

Based on the comments, texts submitted can be (1) approved, (2) approved subject to limited changes, (3) invited for resubmission after extensive revision, or (4) rejected.

The peer review process is supervised by the editor or editor or sub-editor responsible for the issue in question. The recommendations and justifications of both peer reviewers are collected by the editor or sub-editor and further instructions are given on how the reviewers' comments can be incorporated into a possible new version (in case 2 or 3) and the period within which this new version is expected. It is up to the editor or sub-editor to mediate in the event of two conflicting or very different reviews. The editor or sub-editor may decide to appoint a third reviewer. If changes are required, it is up to the editor or sub-editor to decide whether the reviewers need to be re-engaged for the next version of the article.

All submissions are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer review. Submissions considered suitable for peer review are assigned to two or more subject experts, who assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology. If suitable experts external to the journal cannot be found then members of the Editorial Board may be asked to complete a review task.

Authors may be invited to recommend or ask for the exclusion of specific individuals from the peer review process. The journal does not guarantee to use these suggestions. All reviewers must be independent from the submission and will be asked to declare all competing interests.

The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that authors and reviewers remain anonymous for the review process. The review period is expected to take around six to eight weeks, although this can vary depending on reviewer availability. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.

Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, who is supported by an expert, international Editorial Board.

Members of the editorial team/board are permitted to submit their own papers to the journal. In cases where an author is associated with the journal, they will be removed from all editorial tasks for that paper and another member of the team will be assigned responsibility for overseeing peer review. A competing interest must also be declared within the submission and any resulting publication.

The journal is happy to accept submissions of papers that have been loaded onto preprint servers or personal websites, have been presented at conferences, or other informal communication channels. These formats will not be deemed prior publication. Authors must retain copyright to such postings. Authors are encouraged to link any prior posting of their paper to the final published version within the journal, if it is editorially accepted.

-------

Een redacteur beoordeelt eerst of een bijdrage geschikt is voor peer review. TMG – Journal for Media History hanteert een ‘double blind peer review procedure’: de auteurs kennen de identiteit van de reviewers niet, en vice versa. Artikelen die aan het tijdschrift worden aangeboden, worden beoordeeld door twee reviewers werkzaam in een relevant wetenschappelijk deelgebied die het artikel beoordelen op wetenschappelijke relevantie en verantwoording, logische consistentie, methodologische validiteit, enzovoorts.

Ingediende teksten kunnen op basis van de commentaren worden (1) goedgekeurd, (2) goedgekeurd onder voorbehoud van beperkte wijzigingen, (3) uitgenodigd tot opnieuw indienen na grondige revisie, of (4) afgekeurd.

Het peer review proces wordt begeleid door een subredactie die verantwoordelijk is voor het nummer in kwestie. Het gemotiveerde advies van de beide peer reviewers wordt door de (sub)redactrice of (sub)redacteur gebundeld en voorzien van een nadere instructie over hoe de commentaren van de reviewers verwerkt kunnen worden in een eventuele nieuwe versie (in geval 2 of 3) en binnen welke termijn een nieuwe versie verwacht wordt. Het is aan de (sub)redactie om te bemiddelen in het geval van twee conflicterende of sterk uiteenlopende reviews. De (sub)redactie kan besluiten een derde reviewer aan te wijzen. In het geval dat wijzigingen vereist zijn, is het aan de (sub)redactie om te beslissen of de reviewers opnieuw worden ingeschakeld bij een volgende versie van het artikel.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines:

  • the general structure and organisation
  • the cohesion and transition between the different sections
  • the use and interpretation of sources and literature
  • the originality of the piece and its value for the field of media history
  • the argumentation or rationale of the thesis or conclusion.

If applicable, we would also appreciate the reviewer’s comments on whether:

  • the title reflects the content of the piece
  • it is clear what question the article poses or what thesis it makes
  • there is mention of the methodology used
  • the conclusions are discussed concisely
  • there is evidence that relevant and recent literature has been consulted
  • the subject is to some extent topical and/or innovative for the field of media history
--------

Wij verzoeken reviewers zowel de structuur als de inhoud van de bijdrage te beoordelen en de volgende aspecten in ogenschouw te nemen:

  • de algemene structuur en ordening
  • de samenhang en overgang tussen de verschillende onderdelen
  • de hantering en interpretatie van bronnen en literatuur
  • de originaliteit van het stuk en de waarde ervan voor het vakgebied mediageschiedenis
  • de argumentatie c.q. onderbouwing van these of conclusie.

Daarnaast stellen wij het op prijs wanneer reviewers – indien van toepassing – iets willen zeggen over:

  • Dekt de titel de inhoud van het stuk?
  • Is het duidelijk wat de vraagstelling of these van het artikel is?
  • Wordt er aandacht besteed aan de gehanteerde methodologie?
  • Worden de conclusies kernachtig weergegeven?
  • Is er aantoonbaar relevante en recente literatuur geraadpleegd?
  • Is het onderwerp enigermate actueel en/of vernieuwend voor het vakgebied 
  • mediageschiedenis?

Preprint Policy

The journal allows authors to deposit draft versions of their paper into a suitable preprint server, on condition that the author agrees to the below:

  • The author retains copyright to the preprint and developed works from it, and is permitted to submit to the journal.
  • The author declares that a preprint is available within the cover letter presented during submission. This must include a link to the location of the preprint.
  • The author acknowledges that having a preprint publicly available means that the journal cannot guarantee the anonymity of the author during the review process, even if they anonymise the submitted files (see review policy).
  • Should the submission be published, the authors are expected to update the information associated with the preprint version to show that a final version has been published in the journal, including the DOI linking directly to the publication.

ORCID

The journal strongly recommends that all authors submitting a paper register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID). Registration provides a unique and persistent digital identifier for the account that enables accurate attribution and improves the discoverability of published papers, ensuring that the correct author receives the correct credit for their work. As the ORCID remains the same throughout the lifetime of the account, changes of name, affiliation, or research area do not effect the discoverability of an author's past work and aid correspondence with colleagues.

The journal encourages all corresponding authors to include an ORCID within their submitting author data whilst co-authors are recommended to include one. ORCID numbers should be added to the author data upon submission and will be published alongside the submitted paper, should it be accepted.

Data Policy

The journal strongly encourages authors to make all data associated with their submission openly available, according to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). This should be linked to from a Data Accessibility Statement within the submitted paper, which will be made public upon publication. If data is not being made available with the journal publication, a statement from the author should be provided to explain why. Data obtained from other sources must be appropriately credited. When depositing data for a submission, the below should be considered:

  • The repository the data is deposited in must be suitable for this subject and have a sustainability model.
  • The data must be deposited under an open license that permits unrestricted access (e.g. CC0, CC-BY). More restrictive licenses should only be used if a valid reason (e.g. legal) is present.
  • The deposited data must include a version that is in an open, non-proprietary format.
  • The deposited data must have been labelled in such a way that a 3rd party can make sense of it (e.g. sensible column headers, descriptions in a readme text file). 
  • Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Where applicable, the studies must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The identity of the research subject should be anonymised whenever possible. For research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study must be obtained from participants (or their legal guardian). 
  • A ‘Data Accessibility Statement’ should be added to the submission, prior to the reference list, providing the details of the data accessibility, including the DOI linking to it. If the data is restricted in any way, the reasoning should be given. 

A list of data repositories is available at http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Data_repositories.

Competing Interests, Funding and Ethics 

To ensure transparency, all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication. Competing interests guidelines can be viewed here.

In addition, authors are required to specify funding sources and detail requirements for ethical research in the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines).

Corrections and Retractions

In accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (where applicable), the Press handles different kinds of error. All articles have their proofs checked prior to publication by the author/editor, which should ensure that content errors are not present. Please contact your editorial manager if an article needs correcting.

Post-publication changes are not permitted to the publication, unless in exceptional circumstances. If an error is discovered in a published article then the publisher will assess whether a Correction paper or Retraction is required. Please contact the editor for the full Correction/Retraction policy.

Misconduct and Complaints

Allegations of misconduct will be taken with utmost seriousness, regardless of whether those involved are internal or external to the journal, or whether the submission in question is pre- or post-publication. If an allegation of misconduct is made to the journal, it must be immediately passed on to the publisher, who will follow guidelines from the Committee  on Publication Ethics (COPE) on how to address the nature of the problem. Should the matter involve allegations against a member of the journal or publishing team, an independent and objective individual(s) may be sought to lead the investigation.

Should an author wish to lodge a complaint against an editorial decision or the editorial process in general they should first approach the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, explaining their complaint and ask for a reasoned response. Should this not be forthcoming or inadequate, they should raise the matter with the publisher, who will investigate the nature of the complaint and act as arbiter on whether the complaint should be upheld and investigated further. This will follow guidelines set out by COPE.

Section Policies

Editorial

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Articles (peer-reviewed)

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Dossier

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Seminar

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Forum and Debate

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Portfolios

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

In Memoriam

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

From the TMG Archives

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Archiefvondsten

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Interviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Articles (peer reviewed) Part 1 – Contemporary Big Data Practices in Historical Perspective

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Articles (peer reviewed) Part 2 – Big Data in Media (History) Research: Developments and Historical Entanglements

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links